I often question (mainly to myself) the value of anecdotes when it comes to news coverage. Obviously, they're terribly subjective, and second, they're not necessarily representative of the world at large. It's like when conservatives rail against affirmative action, and they point to Colin Powell or Condi Rice. "See," they'll say, "Black people are achieving! They don't need special treatment. Powell and Rice were/are some of the most powerful people in the world. Affirmative action is no longer necessary!" One or two cases - or even thousands - is not enough to substantively establish a larger change in a social issue like race dynamics. Just because one or two African Americans make it to Secretary of State isn't necessarily indicative of a sudden birthing of substantive racial egalitarianism.
That said, however, anecdotes do act as powerful symbols, and when it comes to public policy rhetoric, these symbols can be powerful motivators which drive action. Obviously, using anecdotes to achieve policy aims isn't the strict purview of conservatives - us libs use them all the time. Michael Moore uses symbols - personal anecdotes more specifically - to make very powerful arguments about violence in America, or health care, or the effects of globalization. It can be hard, then, to penetrate the emotional power of symbols to get down to the nitty-gritty of policy development; just the facts, ma'am.
But even then, public policy is a very emotional process. It isn't like market exchanges in which material things are exchanged for greater utility. People's well-being and emotional states are critically linked to their quality of life. When people suffer, even if they're part of a small minority, it matters. That said, Fox News has really taken the use of symbols to a ridiculous extreme. I can't imagine anybody running this piece and still claiming to adhere to any sort of code of ethics. I suppose one (from Fox) could argue that, hey, this is just one man's story. But it's inclusion as part of their World Coverage is troubling. Below is the entirety of the piece. It's relatively short.
Michael J. Totten is an independent journalist reporting on the
war in Iraq. Here is a portion of his latest journal entry provided exclusively
for FOXNews.com.
Iraqis who are not American citizens and who work as interpreters
for the American military cover their faces when they work outside the wire.
Mahdi Army militiamen and Al Qaeda terrorists accuse of them of collaboration
with the enemy. They and their families are targets for destruction.
Here is the story of one such interpreter who works with the 82nd
Airborne Division in Baghdad. He calls himself “Hammer.”
Michael J. Totten (MJT): Why do you have to cover your face?
Hammer: To protect my family. My family lives in Iraq. If they go to
the U.S. I won’t have to do it. But I don’t want anyone to know me, to follow me
and see where I live and kill my wife and son.
MJT: How did you feel when the U.S. invaded Iraq?
Hammer: Happy. It was like I was living in a jail and somebody set me
free. I don’t want Saddam ruling me. Never. I was just waiting and waiting for
this moment.
MJT: What do you think about the possibility of Americans
leaving?
Hammer: It is like bad dream. Very bad dream. A nightmare. Worse
than that. Like sending me back to jail. Like they set me free for four years
then sent me back to jail or gave me a death sentence.
MJT: Tell us about living under Saddam Hussein.
Hammer: It was crazy life, like feeling safe inside a jail. If they
sent you to an actual jail nothing changed. They arrested everyone, literally
everyone, for no reason and sent them to jail for two weeks just so they could
see the jail.
I went there three times. The first time because I worked for a movie
company. They sent all of us to jail. It had nothing to do with me.
I was given a three year sentence. My family has money, so I paid the
judge $50,000. I gave it directly to the judge, plus four new tires for his car
and a satellite TV. He gave me a three-month sentence instead of a three-year
sentence. He scratched “3 years” off my sentence and wrote “3 months” in by
hand.
They sent me to Abu Ghraib. I saw so many things. If you want me to
talk about that I would need a whole newspaper.
MJT: Is there a solution to the problem in this country?
Hammer: Nuke Iraq.
MJT: Be serious.
Hammer: I am serious. If you screen all Iraqis, 5 million of them would
be good people. Clear them out, then kill everyone else. Syria and Iran would
surrender. [Laughs.]
Right now they see 100 corpses every day in the streets.
It’s not okay to kill the bad people who do that?
OK, if you want a serious solution try this:
Charge money to the families of insurgents. Fine them huge amounts of
money if anyone in their family is captured or killed and identified as an
insurgent. Make them pay. You can put it into law. Within one week they won’t do
anything wrong because they want money. Their familes will make them stop.
The militias pay them $100 to set up IEDs. Fine them thousands of
dollars if they are caught and their families will make them stop. Give them
that law. Go ahead. Try it.
Is this guy frickin' serious!?
I see what Fox is trying to do. This interview by an "independent journalist" (whatever that means) puts a human face on those who stand to suffer if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, and I'm sure that we're all sympathetic to his plight. It's a tough situation to be in for sure. Assuming good faith (as I am inclined to do), this man just wants to do something good for his country, and make some money for his family; not that different from the rest of us. Hell, I say, give his ass a green card, and ship him stateside once we leave, he's earned it.
One issue I have with this piece is that Totten neglects to ask some pretty obvious (at least to me) questions that I think should probably have been asked. I don't know, maybe he asked them and they were just clipped. Only he and "Hammer" know for sure. Hammer says, in the answer to the first question, "If [my family] goes to the U.S. I won't have to [cover my face to avoid retribution]." Has he tried to get his family sent to the U.S.? I would imagine so, since he brought it up without prodding and didn't mention a more feasible alternative like Syria or Jordan. The problem is, though, that the U.S. has allowed fewer than 200 Iraqi immigrants into the country since October. If we're really serious about helping this loyal ally to the United States, then perhaps Fox should look at some of the very serious moral issues that have surfaced when it comes to protecting the family of these critical U.S. allies in Baghdad. I think it's a legitimate question to ask, especially considering the likelihood of a U.S. draw down after 2008 (one would hope). Of course, Fox is too busy cheerleading a long term occupation of the country to support any sort of contingency plan once our occupation (inevitably, in my opinion) fails.
Those questions aside, though, the content of this interview was pretty disturbing.
MJT: How did you feel when the U.S. invaded Iraq?
Hammer: Happy. It was like I was living in a jail and somebody set me
free. I don’t want Saddam ruling me. Never. I was just waiting and waiting for
this moment.
Hmmm... was it worth it, Hammer? I mean, really. I think that question should be the automatic follow up to answers like these. I'm serious. Liberty, and Democracy, and Freedom more generally are all things that I value dearly. But you know what? Stability is pretty frickin' important. Of course this man doesn't want the U.S. to leave. But does he feel safer now that Saddam Hussein is dead? Is his family safer? Are his friends? Is it worth it?
Of course, we then get the obligatory story about how atrocious Hussein's regime was. I believe it, for sure. And I see why Fox is high-lighting this anecdote. Hussein was a terrible man, tortured, killed, started wars, etc etc etc. I get it. However, he wasn't the worst dictator, and if he were still around, he still wouldn't be the worst. How many people have died in Iraq since March 2003? I don't know, and neither does anybody else. So many people have died that it's almost impossible to count. The Lancet suggests that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of this war. 655,000! That's the mid-range. I read the report (via JSTOR, sorry, can't link to those), and the margin of error, while high, still allows for a low-end estimate of something like 400,000 and a high end of nearly 1 million. These numbers out of a starting population of 30 million; revolting.
And then there's this question...
MJT: Is there a solution to the problem in this country?
Hammer: Nuke Iraq.
MJT: Be serious.
Hammer: I am serious. If you screen all Iraqis, 5 million of them would be
good people. Clear them out, then kill everyone else. Syria and Iran would
surrender. [Laughs.]
SO FUNNY!
Of course, turns out he was joking. But you know what's even funnier? His "serious" solution...
Charge money to the families of insurgents. Fine them huge
amounts of money if anyone in their family is captured or killed and identified
as an insurgent. Make them pay. You can put it into law. Within one week they
won’t do anything wrong because they want money. Their familes will make them
stop.
The militias pay them $100 to set up IEDs. Fine them thousands
of dollars if they are caught and their families will make them stop. Give them
that law. Go ahead. Try it.
OF COURSE! FINE THEM! Jesus H. Christ, I can't believe Gen. Petraeus hasn't thought of this yet! It's so obvious! The State of Washington doesn't want me to speed on I-5. I tried it once, and I had to pay a fine. Do I speed? Well, sometimes, but you know, whatever.
Fine them. First of all, punishing the family for the actions of an individual is immoral. Isn't that what "Hammer" is afraid will happen to his family? Of course, fining someone and killing them are completely different ball parks, but it's the same logic. But let's assume that the Iraqi Parliament passes a law which outlines fines for the families of known insurgents (since, you know, that Oil law hasn't been making any progress... maybe they'll try this one out). Who is going to enforce that law? Who is going to collect that fine? How are they going to pay for it? There's no significant respect for the rule of law in that country, obviously, and the state has zero capacity to exert its will on even the capital city! They can't extract sufficient revenue to run the place via taxes right now, how does one expect them to collect fines that no one is inclined to pay, not to mention the problems with selective enforcement...
Anyway, I guess my real point regarding all this is that it's ridiculous. This interview adds nothing to the debate, provides no information, and doesn't even really inspire empathy for interviewee. Typical Fox News garbage.
(Hat Tip: Tzepish)
